Is Relativistic Mass Plausible?

[Dale]

As I explained within relativity theory restmass cannot be defined.

Since I defined it just a couple of posts ago this comment seems disingenuous at best.

If relativity principle were true then the 3 kelvin radiation would be isotropic for every inertial system

That doesn't make any sense at all. That is like saying that Mt. Everest should have the same velocity in all reference frames. The CMBR is not a law of nature.

 

[vitruvianman]

The CMBR is not a law of nature.

Right!

 

[vitruvianman]

A mass of an individual object needs velocity to calculate m = gamma * m_0.

But not everytime. Let v be 0, then $m=m_0$ so $m\geq m_0$

 

[vitruvianman]

JANm how about we use $$\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt[]{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}$$
and say $$m = \gamma m_0 = m_0 + (\gamma -1)m_0$$ some people like to break it into these two parts the rest mass and the kinetic energy I think it is simpler to leave it as $$\gamma m_0$$.

Yes it's much simpler but not that effective. I mean you can't calculate what you want without using the original forms of equations.
For example the $E^2=m_0^2c^4+p^2c^2$ not only the famous $E=mc^2$ . Most of the time we "gotta" calculate momentum too... Simplifying doesn't work all the time. A quote from Einstein:

"Keep it simple, stupid — but never oversimplify."